About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
CNNW 7
MSNBCW 3
CSPAN 1
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 19
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
the charges, miranda rights, the public safety exemption, where are we right now on that issue? >> well, the normal rule is that when someone's irsed, they're advised of their rights. you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can be used against you. you have the right to a lawyer. if you can't afford one it will be provided, that sort of thing. if police don't give that warning then they cannot use any statements of the defendant in court. the exception to that is called the public safety exception. it's been extended by judges to terrorism cases. and the idea is that if you need information quickly to preserve public safety, you can ask those questions and still use the responses in court. but that public safety exception rule is limited. it only applies for several hours after fill in the blank. we assume after questioning starts rather than after arrest. probably no more than a day, day and a half. >> where do you come up with that? pete, let me interrupt you there. who has come up with what is the time? is it just, you know it when you see it? >> in terms of the time li
't -- he shouldn't be mirandaized right away. i know you agree with them. >> i think the miranda issue is an easier issue. he doesn't have to be mar lindaized for a lot of reason. first of all, they have enough evidence to convict him without getting a confession from him. all miranda gets you is a confession you can use in court. you can use that information for everything else. remember, he confessed already to the guy they kidnapped. the guy he kidnapped says, these two guys told us, we did the bombing. they got great witness and they got a great confession. maybe even better than a law enforcement confession where you can claim it was forced out of you. they gave a upon takenious confession -- spontaneous confession. >> bob wants to get in here. so then why did they need to make that statement? i'm trying to figure out why they made that statement? >> i don't know exactly why they made it. maybe because they got so much criticism -- remember the christmas morning bomber that they mirandaized right away, lost the opportunity to get information from him? so i think maybe they were pl
to not or blank or turned his head. if it was given prior to the reading of his miranda rights, it would probably be unlikely they would use that against him in court. if it was used voluntarily afterwards, likely he would. about the fact he has lawyered up, most likely we could send the information probably came prior to his reading of the miranda rights. we don't know that right now. >> thank you very much indeed. an extraordinary court session took place inside his hospital room. a transcript of that hearing tonight that tells us about the accused bomber and the case. jason, tell us what happens, it is fascinating. >> it really is and it is an nine page transcript we got hold of. what i can tell you is this proceeding lasted about ten or 15 minutes, started about 11:30 this morning. all of the key figures came into the hospital room and all of them introduce themselves. you had the u.s. judge there and attorneys from both sides. a court reporter there as well. and everyone present wanted to make sure that he knew exactly what was going on, know about the charges that he is facing. let me read
can he be questioned before the public safety runs out, most say 48 hours. once under miranda he is under no obligation to cooperate with authorities. >> remember the number one goal right here is to get inside his head and get whatever intelligence he has with any operatives in the united states to protect the homeland and protect americans inside the united states. >> reporter: speaking this morning on fox news, former u.s. attorney general alberto gonzales suggested being mirandized will not necessarily close off the flow of information from tsnaraev. >> we have something we can give him which is his life. for example, taking the death penalty off the i believe at that. there is possible some kind of deal would be made where he provides information and in exchange for that the government gives him some kind of a plea agreement. >> reporter: gonzalez suspects what may be happening now is in the obama administration is a quote, interagency scrum where some are pushing for a quick mirandizing. others may be advocating a delay so as much information as possible can be garnered, ma
negotiation with the fbi he gives himself up. >> right. >> they arrest him. they don't read him his miranda rights. explain. >> i'm not great on this. my understanding with the fbi and the federal authorities is that it's a terrorist act that they don't get certain rights that the rest of us would be afforded. they wanted to make sure that if we did speak with him that he wouldn't be given his miranda rights and something else kicked in. he was just -- >> you were told this in advance. if you found the guy, your officers are not going to read him his miranda rights. >> this never played out. there was no interviewing at the scene. he needed aid. >> he was in no position to talk. >> exactly. >> he was a very weak -- did he mumble anything? did he say anything? did he give any political statements? >> my understanding is he didn't have anything to say. i don't know for sure. >> what about during the 20-minute negotiation with the fbi when they were working out his surrender? did he make any statements that could be useful? >> no. i'm not aware of any statements. i think it was more he was fin
be read his miranda rights. moving past the politics of it because it seems to get a little poe lit kal, as a former member of fbi how does whether or not the suspect is read his miranda rights influence or impact your investigation? >> it really becomes irrelevant. good report-based interviewers and interrogators who are the ones most effective. the fbi doesn't do that because we're nice. we do that because it worked. in reported based interviewers miranda they can read that and continue. it is not a major obstacle. it is almost irrelevant. jenna: really? we're hearing a it is a major issue whether we get to the bottom of this investigation. so what should we consider as we continue to hear the debate ongoing over the next several days? >> it doesn't, it really doesn't make that much difference to the interviewers and especially the particular group of profile he is -- profilers they developed at quantico, at the fbi academy. this is not terribly relevant. they can sit down with the people. they can interview them. they look for behavioral cues. they look for a way to establish a relat
be charged as early as today. investigators have not read him his miranda rights unwhat they call the public safety exception clause. so they may use any information he reveals as evidence in court. let's bring in christopher tritico, he defended the oklahoma city bomber, timothy mcveigh. christopher, thanks very much for coming in. he is a u.s. citizen. he was -- he received his naturalized citizenship last september 11th, of all dates. he's obviously in a hospital. crime was committed in the united states. if they don't read him his miranda rights right away, you okay with that? >> well, look. i think the public safety exception is being greatly and overly expanded in this instance. the public safety exception as the supreme court laid out is for an instance when an officer walks up on a situation and sees an empty holster and says where's your gun. that's to prevent an imminent threat from happening right then. what they are doing now is really expanding that public safety exception to say really the fifth amendment applies when they say it does and i don't think the supreme court is goin
not get his miranda rights. >> among of group of republicans calling for the boston bombing suspect to be considered an enemy combatant. that means he would not have the same constitutional protection as a regular citizen, with regard to what he says as the investigation moves forward. will this happen? california congressman, a senior member of the intelligence committee. congressman, always good to see you. i know that you disagree with the congressman and think that the suspect is in custody. is entitled to his miranda rights. why? >> well, i think the administration is handling it exactly correct. there is a public safety exception under the miranda allowing law enforcement to interview him, making sure there are no other bombs, threats, perpetrators still out there giving the law enforcement flexibility to do the that prior to miranda and i think the court will interpret it broadly and give them the time they need to make sure that the public is safe. after that, he will have to be mirandized, doesn't mean the end of cooperation, but no basis yet to conclude they should be trea
shouldn't be mirandaized right away. i know you agree with them. >> i think the miranda issue is an easier issue. he doesn't have to be mar lindaized for a lot of reason. first of all, they have enough evidence to convict him without getting a confession from him. all miranda gets you is a confession you can use in court. you can use that information for everything else. remember, he confessed already to the guy they kidnapped. the guy he kidnapped says, these two guys told us, we did the bombing. they got great witness and they got a great confession. maybe even better than a law enforcement confession where you can claim it was forced out of you. they gave a upon takenious confession -- spontaneous confession. >> bob wants to get in here. so then why did they need to make that statement? i'm trying to figure out why they made that statement? >> i don't know exactly why they made it. maybe because they got so much criticism -- remember the christmas morning bomber that they mirandaized right away, lost the opportunity to get information from him? so i think maybe they were playing defense
gathering purposes since he's been president. when we read these people their miranda rights and give them a lawyer the only way you can gather intelligence is if the terror suspect and the lawyer will allow you to do so. intelligence gathering through plea bargaining is not going to make us safe. jenna: so we spoke to a former member of the fbi on our show yesterday that seems to not have a problem with miranda rights, that is their opinion. we'll see what they get as far as information from this one suspect. >> can i mention something. jenna: please. >> i don't have a problem with miranda rights. this man can only be tried in federal court. he's never eligible for military commissions. a first year law student could convict this person. what i'm worried about is what does he know about future attacks? he's telling us that his brother was the bad guy, he's sort of just along for the ride. they had no international connections. guess what, he's down-playing his involvement. what i am suggesting is that we use the national security legal system where we can interview him without a lawyer to
's before he gets the miranda rights. the fact that he can't speak right now, does that push back that window of time because they're not getting anything from him? >> that's a good question that i won't speculate on without a legal background. i'll leave that one up to the master pete williams. but i can imagine there's got to be some sort of gray area there that some lawyer could look at. on that point, though, i think it's interesting, where we've gone now from, alex, is we've gone from this, all right, what exactly happened, to these real sort of questions surrounding the national security of this country, and how exactly these two individuals were able to go forward with what they ultimately accomplished. so this morning, sort of around that point, talking to folks related to the house homeland security committee, they say they really want to sort of get this investigation rolling on why these two individuals seem to have slipped through the u.s. intelligence community, especially after that information reported yesterday that the russians were concerned about the older broth
with the questions out receiving miranda warnings but the only downside is that his statements may not be used against him at trial. this is not much of a risk when you consider the other available evidence including photo images of him at the scene of the bombings and his own reported confession to the victim whose car he helped hijack during the last week's terror in boston. . but if your concern is over the larger threat in who the tsarnaev brothers were and are, what they did and what they represent, then worry a lot. for starters, you you can worry about how the high-value intergage group or h.i.g., will do its work. that unit was finally put in place by the f.b.i. after so-called underwear bomber tried to blow up the airplane in which he was traveling as it flew over detroit on christmas day, 2009. and was advise of his mir and da rights. the c.i.a. interrogation program that might have handleled the interview had by then been dismantled by president obama. at the behest of such muslim brotherhood affiliated groups as the council on american islamic relations, and the islamic society of
-called public safety exception to the miranda rule where for some period of time, it's not entirely clear how long, a suspect can be questioned without miranda warnings and that apparently is what's happening here. again, it's complicated somewhat by the fact that we didn't know exactly what tsarnaev's medical condition is and how many questions he can answer. apparently he's answering some questions in writing. so i don't really see lindsey graham's proposal as all that differentwhat's going on now. he seems to suggest a longer process of questioning him, but the obama administration has also committed to some period of questioning. now, this all assumes that he's willing to answer questions. can he always samp simply say it answering questions and there is no way either under enemy combatant rules or in the criminal justice system to force someone to answer questions who doesn't want to answer them. >> the argument i guess is under this limited questioning period before he is formally advised of his miranda rights, he has and right to an attorney, doesn't have to answer any questions. there
with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety." the administration had rightly invoked this public safety exception in the case of the boston suspect which provided our national security professionals a discreet period of time to gather intelligence from the suspect without the presence of his lawyer. however, soon after questioning him this way, the administration recently reversed itself and read the suspect his miranda rights. in doing so, the administration, in my view, gave up a valuable opportunity to lawfully and thoroughly question the suspect for purposes of gathering intelligence about potential future terrorist plots. whether we will be able to acquire such information has now been left entirely at the discretion of the suspect and his lawyer. put simply, the suspect has been told he has the right to remain silent, and if he doesn't want to provide intelligence, he doesn't have to. is this a responsible balance between a citizen's rights and our national security? the
. they didn't give a miranda warning so the aclu is shouting about that. and of course, well-known southern bell lindsey graham, why isn't he being treated as an enemy combatant? that one to me -- >> what about benghazi? >> shut up. >> stephanie: i'll always have benghazi. it is my terror. no. >> i would never go thirsty again. i'll have another mint julep thank you. >> stephanie: the legal expert i heard this weekend said this is a nonstarter to treat him as enemy combatants. did he a crime on u.s. soil. >> peter king said this. >> i believe -- should be portrayed as enemy combatants. senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte, there are so many questions unanswered so many potential links to terrorism here. the battlefield is now in the united states. i believe he is an enemy combatant. ultimately, he will be tried in a civilian court and the statements taken from him cannot be used against him in that trial. right now, the only links we have as much as chechnyan involvement in the islamic movement. are there other conspirators out there? where do they get the radicalization? >> he so
was provided before or after that judge/magistrate was there and r read him his miranda rights? the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney? >> sources have indicated to us that was part of a questioning that they did under the -- fbi agent does under a national security exemption, before he was assigned counsel. they had the ability in the interest of public safety exception to be able to ask questions, were there additional coconspirators, where and were there additional explosives. the source of things you want to know immediately in order to protect the public. presumably base wanted on what we are hearing, those are the questions they asked and the kinds of responses prior to the first appearance yesterday. >> that would fit in with the public safety exception in the there a in providing the miranda rights to this criminal defendant as he now is, charges have been read to him. fran, we'll stay in close touch with you, fran townsend. much more from boston in just a moment. other news that we're watching as well. the fbi, back in washington, up on capitol hill, lawmake
question him about his guilt or innocence, he's entitled to his miranda rights and a lawyer. but we have the right under our law -- i've been a military lawyer for 30 years, to gather intelligence from enemy combatants. and a citizen can be an enemy combatant. he is not eligible for military commission trial. i wrote the military commission in 2009. he cannot go to military commission. >> so a civil trial no matter what. right. >> in my view a civil trial, it should be a federal trial. >> right. and senator schumer, i know you agree this should go to a federal court. i want to quick read you something that one of your colleagues said. this is from senator carl levin, the chairman of the armed services committee. and in response to senator graham and others saying this man needs to be treated as a terrorist, this is what senator levin said. i am not aware of any evidence so far that the boston suspect is part of any organized group let alone al qaeda, the taliban or within of their affiliates. in the absence of such evidence, i know of no legal basis for his detention as an enemy combatan
? and then on the issue of miranda rights, that's one i'm really worked up on and then guns as well. they got the guns in a way that was not licensed. could we have licensed them or caught them if they had to go through licensing? maybe the nra might be in a lot of trouble because of that, because they just defeated that kind of legislation, and i think they should have gotten mirandized. i don't know what you think about that michael? >> michael: i think absolutely he should have been mirandized and a week ago they decided hey, we're not going to close the gun show loophole and now look what we have got. so cenk we will be watching "the young turks" in a few mn minutes. >> thank you. >> michael: on this earth day we have some encouraging news about the state of our nation's energy supply. last week all of the energy came from solar. that is a first, even better no new dirty energy sources came online. our country's solar capacity has already doubled the amount that went online in 2012. that's a good start. if we're going to embrace clean energy, we'll need an army of scientists to le
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)